HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 17540 of 2024 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1.Heard Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. N. Maurya, Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Petitioner has claimed that he was firstly appointed on the post of steno-cum-typist as daily wager on 1.12.1990 and was granted consolidated salary from 17.11.1997 as a daily wager. 3. Subsequently, petitioner’s category was changed as co-adunate (regular but not permanent) employee in the office of respondent no.2. 4. Subsequently, petitioner’s claim for regularization remained pending and while some of his juniors were regularized with effect from earlier dates. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing No.4338 of 2020 that he may be regularized since 1.4.2011, which was disposed of vide an order dated 17.6.2020, that claim of the petitioner be considered in the light of judgements referred therein and when it was not complied with, petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No.3308 of 2021. 6. During pendency of Contempt Petition, an order dated 14.9.2021, was passed where by claim of petitioner for regularization was rejected which was the subject matter of Writ Petition bearing No.5832 of 2021, which was allowed vide an order dated 23.3.2 023, wherein order dated 4.3.2021 was set-aside and matter was remanded to concerned respondent to ensure that regularization order be passed by the competent authority. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, order dated 14.12.2023, was passed whereby the petitioner was regularized however with effect from the date of the order as a fresh appointment. 8. Order dated 14.12.2023 is under challenge before this Court mainly on a ground that petitioner ought to have been regularized from the earlier date i.e. 1.4.2011 when Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., J. N. Maurya, Sunil Kumar Misra Avinash Kumar Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) his juniors were regularized. 9. In order to support the aforesaid claim and to show that petitioner has suffered with arbitrariness, learned counsel for the petitioner refers a chart mentioned in the writ petition, however, Court finds that basis of said chart is not supported by any document such as respective orders of regularization of juniors to the petitioner therefore, this Court has no material to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of arbitrariness. 10. Court also takes note of a document dated 26.6.2025, however still it is not clear as to how the claim of the petitioner of arbitrariness is correct. 11. Court also takes note of a judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, 2019 (10) SCC 516, wherein the issue of denial of regularization of some of the employees were considered, whereas in present case dispute is of the effective date of regularization. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances on basis of material available along with this writ petition, claim of the petitioner that respondents have acted arbitrarily cannot be accepted, therefore, relief sought cannot be granted. However, still in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of reserving a liberty to petitioner that in case he has sufficient material i.e. documentary evidence that respondents have acted arbitrarily by fixing different effective date of regularization amongst similarly situated persons, he may raise a fresh grievance before concern respondent, who will consider it and if necessary will pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law, ignoring impugned order. April 23, 2026 SB WRIA No. 17540 of 2024 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad